Simple question, how can Keynesian economic solutions be implemented without government action or central banking?

The underlying idea of Keynes is to use governmental power for desired macro outcomes. In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

It always intrigues me that you're so willing to discuss "Keynesian economics," when in reality you don't actually understand *any* of it and can only strawman.

Simple question, how can Keynesian economic solutions be implemented without government action or central banking?

They can't.

The underlying idea of Keynes is to use governmental power for desired macro outcomes.

The underlying animus of Keynesian economics is that wages and prices are sticky and thus demand shocks cause involuntary unemployment--the next step, as recommended by Keynes, is government action. Monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound, for instance, isn't exactly "Keynesian." Keynes thought monetary policy was dead in the water--clearly, that's bullsh1t, and people like myself, David Bedckworth, Scott Sumner, and others who advocate monetary over fiscal stimulus aren't exactly pure disciples of Keynes. But, that notwithstanding, the animating rationale behind our position is the same as that of Keynes.

In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

I guess, if you take this to a very, very extreme degree, then sure. But, again, I'd rather the government "interfere with voluntary exchange," then allow me the freedom to suffer and die hungry, because my dipsh1t government is trying to stand on "principle" and let the vast majority of the wealth amass at the top, where it does virtually no tangible good for me.

It always intrigues me that you're so willing to discuss "Keynesian economics," when in reality you don't actually understand *any* of it and can only strawman.

Simple question, how can Keynesian economic solutions be implemented without government action or central banking?

They can't.

The underlying idea of Keynes is to use governmental power for desired macro outcomes.

The underlying animus of Keynesian economics is that wages and prices are sticky and thus demand shocks cause involuntary unemployment--the next step, as recommended by Keynes, is government action. Monetary stimulus at the zero lower bound, for instance, isn't exactly "Keynesian." Keynes thought monetary policy was dead in the water--clearly, that's bullsh1t, and people like myself, David Bedckworth, Scott Sumner, and others who advocate monetary over fiscal stimulus aren't exactly pure disciples of Keynes. But, that notwithstanding, the animating rationale behind our position is the same as that of Keynes.

Central banking and centrally planned monetary policy is as bad if not worse than fiscal stimulus.

In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

I guess, if you take this to a very, very extreme degree, then sure. But, again, I'd rather the government "interfere with voluntary exchange," then allow me the freedom to suffer and die hungry, because my dipsh1t government is trying to stand on "principle" and let the vast majority of the wealth amass at the top, where it does virtually no tangible good for me.

At 12/9/2015 12:45:36 PM, Chang29 wrote:Central banking and centrally planned monetary policy is as bad if not worse than fiscal stimulus.

No, it really isn't: it doesn't cost a penny, is easy to reverse, is generally speaking credible, and is the single, underlying force--that can't be offset--controlling inflation over longer periods of time, and thus real variables in the short run.

In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

I guess, if you take this to a very, very extreme degree, then sure. But, again, I'd rather the government "interfere with voluntary exchange," then allow me the freedom to suffer and die hungry, because my dipsh1t government is trying to stand on "principle" and let the vast majority of the wealth amass at the top, where it does virtually no tangible good for me.

For Keynesian solutions to work Liberty must be controlled.

I like the word "controlled." This is very true. Again: so what?

Tip of a bayonet economics, great ideas do not require threats.

Lol.

It's not necessarily a "threat," but insofar as monetary policy is a "threat"--it isn't, in any way, shape or form, and that you're likening it to fiscal policy suggests that you *really* don't understand it--it's worth it.

At 12/9/2015 12:45:36 PM, Chang29 wrote:Central banking and centrally planned monetary policy is as bad if not worse than fiscal stimulus.

No, it really isn't: it doesn't cost a penny, is easy to reverse, is generally speaking credible, and is the single, underlying force--that can't be offset--controlling inflation over longer periods of time, and thus real variables in the short run.

In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

I guess, if you take this to a very, very extreme degree, then sure. But, again, I'd rather the government "interfere with voluntary exchange," then allow me the freedom to suffer and die hungry, because my dipsh1t government is trying to stand on "principle" and let the vast majority of the wealth amass at the top, where it does virtually no tangible good for me.

For Keynesian solutions to work Liberty must be controlled.

I like the word "controlled." This is very true. Again: so what?

Tip of a bayonet economics, great ideas do not require threats.

Lol.

It's not necessarily a "threat," but insofar as monetary policy is a "threat"--it isn't, in any way, shape or form, and that you're likening it to fiscal policy suggests that you *really* don't understand it--it's worth it.

At 12/9/2015 12:45:36 PM, Chang29 wrote:Central banking and centrally planned monetary policy is as bad if not worse than fiscal stimulus.

No, it really isn't: it doesn't cost a penny, is easy to reverse, is generally speaking credible, and is the single, underlying force--that can't be offset--controlling inflation over longer periods of time, and thus real variables in the short run.

In a society that believes in free markets and free people, a society that does not let politicians interfere with voluntary exchange, Keynes' ideas can not be implemented.

I guess, if you take this to a very, very extreme degree, then sure. But, again, I'd rather the government "interfere with voluntary exchange," then allow me the freedom to suffer and die hungry, because my dipsh1t government is trying to stand on "principle" and let the vast majority of the wealth amass at the top, where it does virtually no tangible good for me.

For Keynesian solutions to work Liberty must be controlled.

I like the word "controlled." This is very true. Again: so what?

Tip of a bayonet economics, great ideas do not require threats.

Lol.

It's not necessarily a "threat," but insofar as monetary policy is a "threat"--it isn't, in any way, shape or form, and that you're likening it to fiscal policy suggests that you *really* don't understand it--it's worth it.